June 30, 2023 - 7:00am
A six-member majority of the Supreme Court is finally reining in the discriminatory diversity admissions policies that have characterised American higher education for more than half a century. Thursday’s opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is refreshingly firm and direct, concluding that race-preferential admissions policies are both illegal and unconstitutional. The high court’s previous willingness to look the other way is now a thing of the past. As Roberts put it, “eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it”.
Two cases were before the Court. Both were brought by Students for Fair Admissions — a membership organisation created for the purpose of mounting such lawsuits. The first was against Harvard, the country’s oldest university, dealing with the especially high academic standards to which Asian American students are held. The second — brought against the University of North Carolina, the country’s oldest state university — challenged the institution’s race-preferential diversity admissions policy, which disadvantages both Asian American and white students.
The Court held that the admissions standards of both universities violate the law.
So what happens next at the rest of America’s colleges and universities? Will they suddenly turn away from admissions policies that favour African Americans and Latinos over Asian Americans and white students, and instead play it straight down the middle? That seems unlikely. These days, many university officials see their role as evangelists for the gospel of diversity, equity and inclusion. They are unlikely to be deterred by anything so mundane as a Supreme Court decision. Some will continue as before; others will adopt various workarounds — some legal, some pure subterfuge. More lawsuits are likely to come about in the future.
Still, for those who have been viewing with dismay higher education’s relentless obsession with race, this is progress. And for the upcoming 4th July holiday, there will be time to savour Roberts’s opinion as well as the eloquent concurrences of Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
In the future, some schools are likely to pivot from race-based affirmative action to class-based affirmative action, which remains perfectly legal if pursued for its own sake. After all, the reason we have state universities is to ensure that higher education is available to all, not just those who can afford private school tuition.
A major criticism of existing race-preferential admissions policies has been that the beneficiaries are often from well-off families. Their parents and sometimes even their grandparents attended prestigious universities. Meanwhile, students from less advantaged circumstances are often discriminated against because they happen to be Asian American or white. Basing admissions preferences on socio-economic status would presumably change that.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe noble DEI administrators at Harvard emailed today:
“We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences.”
How about the “lived experiences” of lower-class White Trash, cupcake? Or does my comment make you feel “unsafe?”
Very well put.
Clarence Thomas provides a suitable response to such guff here:
“More fundamentally, it is not clear how racial diversity, as opposed to other forms of diversity, uniquely and inde- pendently advances Harvard’s goal. This is particularly true because Harvard blinds itself to other forms of applicant diversity, such as religion. See 2 App. in No. 20–1199, pp. 734–743. It may be the case that exposure to different perspectives and thoughts can foster debate, sharpen young minds, and hone students’ reasoning skills. But, it is not clear how diversity with respect to race, qua race, furthers this goal. Two white students, one from rural Appalachia and one from a wealthy San Francisco suburb, may well have more diverse outlooks on this metric than two students from Manhattan’s Upper East Side attending its most elite schools, one of whom is white and other of whom is black. If Harvard cannot even explain the link between racial diversity and education, then surely its interest in racial diversity cannot be compelling enough to overcome the constitutional limits on race consciousness.”
What would really add some Diversity in Harvard is a few Deplorable white redneck gun totin’ Trump votin’ white trailer-trash.
Very well put.
Clarence Thomas provides a suitable response to such guff here:
“More fundamentally, it is not clear how racial diversity, as opposed to other forms of diversity, uniquely and inde- pendently advances Harvard’s goal. This is particularly true because Harvard blinds itself to other forms of applicant diversity, such as religion. See 2 App. in No. 20–1199, pp. 734–743. It may be the case that exposure to different perspectives and thoughts can foster debate, sharpen young minds, and hone students’ reasoning skills. But, it is not clear how diversity with respect to race, qua race, furthers this goal. Two white students, one from rural Appalachia and one from a wealthy San Francisco suburb, may well have more diverse outlooks on this metric than two students from Manhattan’s Upper East Side attending its most elite schools, one of whom is white and other of whom is black. If Harvard cannot even explain the link between racial diversity and education, then surely its interest in racial diversity cannot be compelling enough to overcome the constitutional limits on race consciousness.”
What would really add some Diversity in Harvard is a few Deplorable white redneck gun totin’ Trump votin’ white trailer-trash.
The noble DEI administrators at Harvard emailed today:
“We write today to reaffirm the fundamental principle that deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences.”
How about the “lived experiences” of lower-class White Trash, cupcake? Or does my comment make you feel “unsafe?”
Sadly this legislation will NOT apply in overtly racist Scotland.
Sadly this legislation will NOT apply in overtly racist Scotland.
Great news. Another brick in the wall..
Indeed, at last a sensible judgement on this subject. Clarence Thomas has had to wait a long time to see sanity restored. Of course, those on the side of affirmative action will not give up their religion without further judicial fights. DIE is too entrenched in the academic system.
There is an ongoing, fundamental difference in opinion between old line liberals and conservatives, as evidenced by Sandra Day O’Connor’s quote from the bench for the majority in 2003 when she wrote her opinion in favor of Affirmative Action:
“Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.”
It’s almost painful to read that simple sentence. Liberals clearly think that the job of the court is to create law vs. interpreting law, which is the complete opposite of what our constitution prescribes. I simply can’t see how a rational mind can believe that institutionalizing overt racism can justify anything good.
Also O’Connor: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary”
Also O’Connor: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary”
There is an ongoing, fundamental difference in opinion between old line liberals and conservatives, as evidenced by Sandra Day O’Connor’s quote from the bench for the majority in 2003 when she wrote her opinion in favor of Affirmative Action:
“Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.”
It’s almost painful to read that simple sentence. Liberals clearly think that the job of the court is to create law vs. interpreting law, which is the complete opposite of what our constitution prescribes. I simply can’t see how a rational mind can believe that institutionalizing overt racism can justify anything good.
Indeed, at last a sensible judgement on this subject. Clarence Thomas has had to wait a long time to see sanity restored. Of course, those on the side of affirmative action will not give up their religion without further judicial fights. DIE is too entrenched in the academic system.
Great news. Another brick in the wall..
Michelle Obama was a beneficiary of affirmative action.
All it did for her was stoke up feelings of racial divisiveness ,and emphasize that Blacks were treated differently to whites.
There is nothing like 3 or 4 years of imposter syndrome to stir up the cognitive dissonance.
Michelle Obama was a beneficiary of affirmative action.
All it did for her was stoke up feelings of racial divisiveness ,and emphasize that Blacks were treated differently to whites.
There is nothing like 3 or 4 years of imposter syndrome to stir up the cognitive dissonance.
A well-reasoned and reasonable take. There is a middle path between total institutional non-intervention and a “heavy thumb on the scale”, right? Some allowances or corrections might justifiably be made, but let’s consign outright “corrective injustice” to the dustbin of history. Not to worry though, we can still squabble over the definitions and details .
Every thumb on the scale is too heavy because that is always the intention of the owner of the thumb what ever semantics they might employ to disguise what they are up to.
Every thumb on the scale is too heavy because that is always the intention of the owner of the thumb what ever semantics they might employ to disguise what they are up to.
A well-reasoned and reasonable take. There is a middle path between total institutional non-intervention and a “heavy thumb on the scale”, right? Some allowances or corrections might justifiably be made, but let’s consign outright “corrective injustice” to the dustbin of history. Not to worry though, we can still squabble over the definitions and details .
What about species Diversity? How many dolphins are there at Harvard?
Be careful what you wish for.
Be careful what you wish for.
What about species Diversity? How many dolphins are there at Harvard?
The University of Michigan states this about its DEI plan:
“Our strategic plan implementation has seen significant progress, with new DEI initiatives being incorporated into many aspects of the university’s mission and operations.”
If DEI is incorporated into the university’s mission, then to some degree its mission and the law are in conflict. Does it seem likely that a university which has already dedicated a great deal of money and hired political officers to enforce this part of its mission will allow itself to be thwarted? It seems almost certain that it will find a way around the court ruling, even if the approach is merely to abandon standards.
The University of Michigan states this about its DEI plan:
“Our strategic plan implementation has seen significant progress, with new DEI initiatives being incorporated into many aspects of the university’s mission and operations.”
If DEI is incorporated into the university’s mission, then to some degree its mission and the law are in conflict. Does it seem likely that a university which has already dedicated a great deal of money and hired political officers to enforce this part of its mission will allow itself to be thwarted? It seems almost certain that it will find a way around the court ruling, even if the approach is merely to abandon standards.
A diverse campus with voluntarily segregated dorms, dining halls, and even graduation ceremonies isn’t benefitting from diversity.
Indeed, this practice merely highlights the hypocrisy of the cant trotted out by the DIE administrator of Harvard.
But segregation appears to be the only way forward
Indeed, this practice merely highlights the hypocrisy of the cant trotted out by the DIE administrator of Harvard.
But segregation appears to be the only way forward
A diverse campus with voluntarily segregated dorms, dining halls, and even graduation ceremonies isn’t benefitting from diversity.
Dispensing with legacy students would be a major first step in ensuring equal treatment of all applicants. It’s a bizarre system that seems equivalent to peers inheriting seats in the House of Lords. Based on your progenitor you are entitled to something you have not earned.
Dispensing with legacy students would be a major first step in ensuring equal treatment of all applicants. It’s a bizarre system that seems equivalent to peers inheriting seats in the House of Lords. Based on your progenitor you are entitled to something you have not earned.
Professor Heriot’s expectation that universities will stop requiring/using SAT and ACT scores is already happening. This ruling will accelerate dropping these tests.
But universities have several important goals/values. One of those goals is to be recognized as an institution of academic excellence. Drop the SAT/ACT tests, and it becomes very difficult to select students who can do the work in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, math, computer science, engineering, etc.). There will unpleasant consequences when profs teaching at the highest level find themselves lecturing to students with middling ability. Universities’ reputations will suffer, while schools with merits based admissions will benefit academically and in reputation.
It’s a conundrum that the currently “elite” schools justly deserve.
Professor Heriot’s expectation that universities will stop requiring/using SAT and ACT scores is already happening. This ruling will accelerate dropping these tests.
But universities have several important goals/values. One of those goals is to be recognized as an institution of academic excellence. Drop the SAT/ACT tests, and it becomes very difficult to select students who can do the work in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, math, computer science, engineering, etc.). There will unpleasant consequences when profs teaching at the highest level find themselves lecturing to students with middling ability. Universities’ reputations will suffer, while schools with merits based admissions will benefit academically and in reputation.
It’s a conundrum that the currently “elite” schools justly deserve.
This landmark decision is a first step. Next objective should be civil lawsuits with significant punitive damage.
University will then reluctantly undestand that having a DIE department is both a legal risk, and will therefore comply.
This landmark decision is a first step. Next objective should be civil lawsuits with significant punitive damage.
University will then reluctantly undestand that having a DIE department is both a legal risk, and will therefore comply.